Deregulation + Bailout = Epic Fail

26Sep08

Overall, I’m a fan of capitalism.  This is not to say that I don’t have problems with aspects of it, but it’s hard to argue with capitalism’s ability to fuel innovation.  Similarly, I also generally subscribe to the capitalistic idea of removing unnecessary restrictions on businesses to aid in cultivating economic growth (e.g. deregulation), but I also recognize that, due to the associated risks, it is important to include measures of oversight to maintain the delicate balance between economic freedom and responsibility.

Deregulation has been taking a beating as of late, and rightfully so.  However, it’s important to note that with deregulation, and many other similar capitalistic concepts, its successes are not always discernable while its failures are readily apparent.  For example, if the removal of costly reporting requirements encourages financial gain in small businesses or a deregulated market provides for a successful and efficient merger and, consequently, the market increases, deregulation is seldom showered with praise.  However, when a company bottoms-out after being exposed for cooking the books or a financial institution files for bankruptcy due to irresponsible lending, deregulation is immediately raked over the coals.

For the most part, any situation that can be regulated has corresponding advantages and drawbacks to such regulation.  Phil Gramm’s deregulatory circumventing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, has been generally accepted as the main contributing factor to the Enron fiasco.  Score one for regulation.  However, in response to the Enron scandal, and its sister Tyco, Adelphia and WorldCom scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put in place to increase the financial reporting requirements of public companies.  And while there hasn’t been such a large-scale corruption scandal since its inception, one can’t say for certain, that a scandal isn’t brewing beneath the surface.  What can be said for certain is that immediately after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act going into effect, the number of small and foreign firms deregistering from the U.S. stock exchange increased dramatically due to the additional cost required to comply with the act.  Score one for deregulation.

It is also important to note, that in order for deregulation to be successful, it has to be implemented in a manner that keeps itself in check.  Basically, the system must be set up such that businesses have the right to take advantage of loose requirements in order to acquire large gains, while at the same time being held in check by recognition of large risk.  The system does not work when businesses are allowed to run free without any risk.

A week ago, Henry Paulsen stated that the Federal Government’s refusal to bailout Lehman Brothers, was due to a threat of moral hazard – the basic concept that if shielded from any risk, a company is more likely to be reckless.   In my opinion, this was a fair decision due to this understandably large problem associated with government bailouts.  Obviously, if executives know that their company will be safeguarded, via a government bailout, from any serious repercussions due to failed financial undertakings, the idea of chasing after lofty, high-risk ventures becomes reasonable.  This is why deregulation and bailouts need to be kept separate.  Deregulation provides the opportunity of high gains, while the risk of financial ruin keeps the pursuit of such high gains in check.

However, while the risk of moral hazard as been discussed in the past few days, we’re now faced with the proposal of a potential $700 billion bailout that will require raising the national debt ceiling, further dragging down the dollar, but that will not require any specific oversight or define any restrictions on executive compensation.  Add this on top of the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rescue of AIG, and we’re sending a dangerous message.  Where does it end?  Does anyone really think that the government would even hesitate in instituting another bailout if Bank of America were to fall on hard times?  There’s no way that the government would allow an institution that big and that important to fail.

Currently, it does seem clear that, in light of the news of companies beginning to go under due to their inability to acquire necessary loans, some type of financial assistance is needed, but it had better come with serious stipulations and specific oversight measures as opposed to its current “blank check” form.  Otherwise, we need to have faith that, after being bailed out, our respectable financial institutions will, of their own accord, resist the lure of wealth and greed-laden impulses to pursue high gain/risk ventures, and instead make secure, responsible decisions…call me a skeptic…

Filed under: Economics, Politics   |  4 Comments
Tags: AIG, bail-out, bailout, capitalism, deregulation, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Paulson, Sarbanes-Oxley

Ahh…spite.

06Aug08

I love spite.  I try not to subscribe to it myself, but from a third-party perspective, I find it amusing that someone would take the time and effort to carry out malicious acts that are misguided and/or which provide little or nothing to gain.

 

Enter the PUMAs – and I don’t mean Puma concolor, member of the Felidae family.  I mean “Party Unity My Ass”.  (I know that the official committee name is “People United Means Action”, but who are we kidding?)

 

Now, the PUMAs themselves will argue that their movement is not an act of spite, but rather political protest against a flawed democratic process that was unfair to their preferred candidate.  Fair enough.  I like political activism.  But organizing a movement, that is in opposition to the presumptive Democratic nominee who has viewpoints almost completely in line with your preferred candidate and who was elected by the party’s voters in accordance with the current Democratic guidelines, in order to help the other party’s candidate who seemingly does not represent your best interests, while your preferred candidate herself is publicly stating that such a movement is against her wishes?…Sounds like spite to me.

 

With its members’ opinions ranging from Pro-Hillary to Anti-Obama to Anti-DNC , PUMA doesn’t seem to have a clear mission statement, however, it appears that the general opinion is that the 2008 Democratic Primary was a sham due to 1) misogyny and sexism in the media, 2) an unfair ruling by the Rules and Bylaws Committee on seating Florida and Michigan delegates 3)and unfair treatment by the party leadership which influenced the outcome of the election.

 

Really?

 

With respect to sexism in the media, admittedly, I do remember instances where the political analysts, in moments of ground-breaking journalism, were discussing Hillary’s need to soften her image and “fem it up a little.”  In fact, after one of the debates, I believe Wolf Blitzer and Carol Costello were talking about Hillary’s bright pink jacket.  Ok, so gender was an issue…but is this unexpected?  Hillary was the first legitimate female presidential candidate.  Of course people are going to make a big deal about her being a woman.  The fact that reporters were commenting on Hillary’s outfits doesn’t seem to me to be an indication of sexism in the media, but rather an indication that the media has generally abandoned journalism for the pursuit of headlines (i.e. pants suits, lapel pins, etc.).  Additionally, you can’t honestly tell me that the media’s constant onslaught of stories regarding race and/or religion with respect to Obama didn’t outweigh the gender discussions.  Besides, if this is an issue of sexism, it’s a problem with the media and not the DNC.  Are the PUMA members angry that the Democratic Party leaders didn’t speak out against the suggested sexism in the media?  Because, I don’t believe that the party’s involvement would have had helped.  If Howard Dean would have addressed the apparent sexism in the media and asked all of the reporters and analysis to please steer clear of discussing gender, it would have had the exact opposite effect.  Gender would have been all that the media discussed for weeks.

 

With respect to seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, there’s no real need to go into too much detail as it has already been discussed at length.  I will note, however, that in my opinion the RBC should have decided not to seat any of the Florida or Michigan delegates, which would have adhered to the initial decision back in December.  Unfortunately, they didn’t which does give weight to Harold Ickes argument that by allocating delegates to Obama the committe has decided to remove four delegates won by Hillary.  So, if the PUMA argument is that the allocation decided upon by the RBC is unfair and, instead, the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated, I can get on board.  However, taking any other action is equally unfair and that definitely includes counting the Florida and Michigan delegates based the election results, when there was no campaigning in Florida and only Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, undecided, and write-in were on the ballot in Michigan.  I honestly cannot understand how anyone can believe that ignoring an initial decision that was made with the consent of the Democratic candidates to not seat the delegates from Michigan and subsequently giving Hillary her delegates without allocating any delegates to Obama is even remotely fair — even with the compelling arguments of Harriet Christian.

 

The third complaint that Obama was elected due to improper influence by the party leadership and not according to the voters’ wishes also seems to be without merit.  If PUMA has a problem with the current system, so be it.  Don’t like caucuses?  That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that Obama wasn’t democratically elected because it doesn’t discount the fact that more individuals voted for Obama then for Clinton under the system as it stands.   A decision by the party leaders to ignore the caucus results when it favors one candidate over the other?  That would be an undemocratic election by the party leadership.

 

In my opinion, what it really comes down to is that Hillary supporters feel that she was forced out of the race early because the leadership started calling for her dropping-out before the convention.  Again, I will admit that there was a lot of talk that Hillary should get out of the race, but again, most of this was a result of the media outlets making it a headline.  Additionally, she was never “forced” out and, if you listened closely, there were a lot of individuals that were supportive of her continuing her campaign.  The main reason that party leaders, especially Pelosi and Dean, wanted the campaign to end before the convention was because they believed that a drawn-out primary would tear the Democratic Party apart.  Hillary’s supporters’ response to such a claim?…That would never happen, there will be plenty of time to heal the party!  And what happened as a result of a drawn-out primary season?  An organization called PUMA.  Yes, that seems right.  We’ll show the party leaders that they were wrong in thinking that a prolonged race would divide the party by forming an organization called “Party Unity My Ass”.

 

The other cry is that the DNC is too shortsighted to see that Hillary is the better candidate to beat John McCain.  My problem with this argument is that on November 4^th, the PUMAs seemingly have three options consistent with their goal:  vote for McCain, don’t vote, or write in Hillary’s name.  If McCain wins, because of a large enough number of PUMAs don’t vote for Obama, it doesn’t prove that the DNC was too shortsighted to realize that Obama can’t beat McCain.  Instead, it just shows that PUMAs have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Obama doesn’t have enough votes to beat McCain.  Want proof?  On voting day, just to make our point, a couple of million of us will not vote for Obama and you’ll see.  It’s synonymous to a proponent of gun control stating that guns are dangerous and then in order to prove his point he embarks on a shooting spree.

 

All of this aside, wouldn’t it be interesting if this PUMA operation succeeds?  It’s no secret that many of the PUMAs consider themselves to be feminists and, accordingly, feel very strongly about women’s reproductive rights and yet they ignore the warnings from fellow feminists like Katha Pollitt and Nancy Keenan who have publicly stated that electing McCain may be the end of Roe vs. Wade.  McCain himself said that “[i]t will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future”.  So, wouldn’t it be interesting if in the name of feminism, the PUMAs lead to overturning what many feminists consider to be a landmark case in defending the rights of women?  ‘Cause if there’s one thing that I love more than spite, it’s spite that backfires.

Filed under: Politics   |  3 Comments
Tags: Barack, Clinton, Hillary, Obama, PUMA

The Whole Gay Thing Makes Me Feel Uncomfortable…“Olly Olly Oxen Free!”

31May08

With California’s recent legalization of gay marriage, and the potential of other states to recognize a California marriage in their own state, the “debate” about gay marriage’s legality has resurfaced.

I use the term “debate” very loosely since a debate has the connotation of being an intelligent discussion between those of opposing viewpoints.  With the “debate” about gay marriage, I tend to hear one side presenting a viewpoint that the constitution guarantees individuals basic rights and equality, while the other side presents “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” with an occasional spattering of “It will lead to someone marrying their dog”.

Now don’t misunderstand me.  Personally, I’m a fan of religion and I’m not here to have a religious debate.  If one chooses to maintain a religious standpoint that homosexuality is wrong, that is well within his/her rights.  In fact, who am I to tell them that they are wrong?

Additionally, while I would prefer that arguments against gay marriage be presented in a manner that does not break down either when presented to someone who doesn’t share the same religious beliefs, or that does share the same beliefs but also believes in a separation of church and state, my point is not to analyze whether or not morality should be used as a justification against gay marriage, but rather to discuss how flexible the majority of the population is when it comes to their take on morality, except when it comes to gay marriage.

When attacking the idea of gay marriage, the majority of its opponents turn to the Bible.  Again, I am not here to debate the Bible, but rather to look at it objectively.  There are several passages of the Bible that reference homosexuality, the main passages being in the books of Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, and Romans 1.  As a side note, these passages are only found after a thorough reading while, without any type of research, most can quote at least “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone”, “But for the grace of God, there go I”, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”… but I digress.

Now both Leviticus and Romans 1 are fairly straight forward with passages calling homosexual behavior “detestable”, “indecent”, an “abomination” and a “perversion”.  1 Corinthians, as well, states that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”  So it is apparent that with respect to the Bible, homosexuality is not allowed under any…wait…what’s that?  No revilers?  No swindlers?  No fornicators or drunkards?!?!  All listed in the same verse as homosexuals?  That doesn’t sound good.  Where’s the country’s sense of moral outrage when it comes these other indiscretions?  Or are we only outraged at homosexuality because, for the majority of the population, the issue doesn’t affect them personally, while the other activities sound like an enjoyable Friday night.

While we’re at it, in 1968 the Catholic Church, via Pope Paul VI, issued the Humanae Vitae stating that contraception, in any form including the “early withdrawal” method, is morally wrong.  I’m assuming that if a law banning the production, sale, and use of contraceptives was placed on a ballot along with a gay marriage ban, the average Catholic would exuberantly vote “yes” for both bans to fulfill his/her moral duty?

Additionally, I don’t believe that you can find a major religion that hasn’t taken a negative stance on the sex industry, so we can throw in a provision banning strip clubs, adult toys, and pornography.  No?  Then maybe we’re not as concerned with keeping a moral standard as we thought.

What is it then?  For the overwhelming majority of us, we don’t have homosexual urges.  Add in the fact that, outside the current generation, our upbringing was without exposure to a gay community and referring to someone as “gay” was an accepted insult, and it can be expected that homosexuality is unfamiliar and makes us feel uncomfortable.  Therefore, rather than coming to terms with the fact that we have an archaic perspective to overcome, we simply go into hiding behind religion.

But, doesn’t religion deserve better than that?  Better than being distorted to provide selective justification for hate, discrimination, and intolerance.  Besides, if you can honestly say that the reason that you want to deny a fellow human being the happiness of marrying someone that they love is because it’s what Jesus would want you to do, then you’ve completely missed a fundamental concept.

 So, come on.  Repeat after me: “The whole gay thing makes me feel uncomfortable.”  Now everyone hiding behind religion can come out and do the right thing.  “Olly Olly Oxen Free!”

Filed under: Politics, Religion   |  5 Comments
Tags: Bible, California, gay, homosexuality, marriage

Stripper Economics

23Mar08

First a disclaimer:

I’m all for personal freedom…I’m for female empowerment…I’m familiar with the double standard when it comes to women and sexuality…I recognize that many individuals find themselves in difficult situations that are not their fault…yada yada yada.

That being said, I have noticed a trend.  As we all know, due to situations both financial and anatomic, a handful of women decide to become exotic dancers as some point in their lives.  (Note: This discussion also applies to other “adult” job opportunities, but for simplicity I’ll just focus on stripping)  For most of this select few, it is only a small window of time, encompassing their late teens and early twenties, where one can make a reasonable amount of money quickly and, after which time, leave it behind them and continue on life’s journey.  However, sometimes these girls’ erotic pasts come back to haunt them later in life, perhaps when they become gainfully employed or decide to run for public office.  At which time, a fair amount of these girls scream foul.  The complaint is that they were young and naïve or needed the money to pay for college (the so-called Chris Rock stripper myth).  And that’s fine.  From a purely social standpoint, I tend to agree with their complaint and, except for a few select situations, I would concur that it is indeed unfortunate that society victimizes them as I am not one to impose some type of holier-than-thou sense of morality.  However, for the sake of argument, I would like to point out that when taking a purely economic position, one can’t expect me to be sympathetic when society comes back to bite said individual for her choices.

For example, when one looks at the service being provided and the corresponding cost, it has to be recognized that there are greater factors at work.  The whole reason that particular patrons pay $1 for a 30 second visual showcase and/or fork over $20 to have someone rub her body on him for 3 minutes and 41 seconds while Ted Nugent’s “Cat Scratch Fever” blasts in his ear is due to the fact that society doesn’t approve.  This results in a relatively small number of women willing to perform the act and, consequently, forces the patron to pay the market rate.

Now I know that this isn’t flawless math due to the reality that a girl cannot be working every minute, but making $1/minute on stage and $20/5 minutes in a back room comes to $60/hr and $240/hr, respectively.  And while I recognize that the job doesn’t provide an 8 hour work day, and it’s unreasonable to think that one can work 40 hours a week… let’s face it, anyway you slice it, it destroys minimum wage.

So, how does fundamental economics come into play?  Let’s turn to the Supply-Demand curve:

As we can clearly see, the price of the services being provided corresponds to the quantity of the service available, based on the given supply and demand.  For the purposes of our argument, we’ll assume that the number of bachelor parties, “guys’ nights out”, and couples trying to spice up their relationship stays constant giving us the same demand curve. 

Now let’s look at what happens given a situation where society completely embraces stripping and the strip clubs are flooded with applications.  We’ll call this theoretical situation…Amsterdam.

All of the additional applications shift the supply curve to provide a higher quantity of available girls.  As such, the price that can be reasonably asked drops accordingly.

Now let’s look at what happens given a situation where society completely eradicates stripping due to it being the work of the devil.  We’ll call this theoretical situation…Republican Utopia.

The drop in the number of girls willing to provide the desired service shifts the supply curve to a lower quantity of available girls.  Consequently, the going rate increases as they are now at a premium.

As can be seen, it is society’s approval, or lack thereof, that ultimately controls the amount of money that can be made.  Theoretically, if society completely embraced the adult community, the price of stripping would reach a minimum and if, during such time, a huge amount of girls found stripping to be more enjoyable than working in fast food, working the drive-thru could actually pay better than working at the club.

Therefore, since it is society’s disapproval that made it worth-while for a girl to work in the strip club in the first place, I find it a little hypocritical to complain at future times in life when she becomes a victim of society’s disapproval.  Or at very least, in my opinion, it would be fair for a girl to…ahh…never mind.

 

Filed under: Economics, Random   |  7 Comments
Tags: Stripping

Musical Purist

12Feb08

So, I’m at the bar the other night and some guy sitting to my right turns to me and my friend and asks if we’d be interested in going to some type of metal-fest.  The question is pretty random as the guy doesn’t know us from Adam and he has no idea of our musical tastes.  While my friend isn’t particularly into the metal genre, I would fairly consider myself to be a metal fan.  So, recognizing in light of the inebriated state of my new acquaintance that he most likely isn’t as much looking for a concert companion as he is looking to strike up a conversation about music, I take the bait.

He immediately steers the conversation away from the concert and proceeds to list a plurality of bands that he likes, trying to subtly impress me with his apparent understanding of the genre and connection to the music underground.  When it was my turn, I commenced by indicating that my musical taste is quite varied as I appreciate many different genres and, in the same vein, I like a wide-variety of metal bands ranging from the old-school to the new-school and from hardcore to melodic.  I then enumerated my top tier of bands, some of which overlapped his list.  He smiled every time that I mentioned a slightly obscure “underground” band, nodded in approval when my list concluded, and then remarked that we should definitely check out this metal-fest.  He also mentioned that we could go to the bar when there was a band performing that we didn’t want to see…say Slipknot.  The following exchange went something like this:

Me:  “What’s wrong with Slipknot?”

Him:  “You don’t like Slipknot, do you?” (With disgust)

Me:  “Yeah. ”

Him:  “What’s wrong with you?  How can you like Slipknot?”

Me:  “What’s wrong with them?”

Him:  “They’re too mhyee-mhyee.” (This was said while pretending to hold a microphone and contorting his face)

Me:  “I’m sorry.  I don’t know what that means.  Are you saying that they sing too much?”

Him:  “No, they just suck.”

Me:  “Poignant in its brevity.  Care to elaborate?”

Him:  “Well for one thing, they’re not metal.”

Me:  “In your opinion, what constitutes metal?”

Him: (silence)

It was at this point that I decided that confronting his statements head-on was getting me nowhere.  Instead, I tried to draw-out an explanation through mutual understanding.  I continued…

Me:  “Don’t get me wrong, I understand that they’re a different type of band than Sepultura, Pantera, Napalm Dea—“

Him:  “I can’t believe you like Slipknot.”

Me:  “Yes, we’ve already been over this.  I can appreciate that if you don’t like their sound then you naturally wouldn’t like the band, but you haven’t indicated what it is that you don’t like.  Additionally, I’m trying to figure out why you can’t understand why anyone would like them.  You seem to think that they suck and aren’t metal just because they don’t sound exactly like other bands that you like.  Look, we both agreed that The Dillinger Escape Plan and Pantera are great bands and yet they sound very different from each other and neither of them are anything like Black Sabbath, and just about everyone accepts Sabbath as metal.  And I guarantee you that I can find a lot Sabbath fans that wouldn’t like Dillinger or even call them metal.  In fact, I saw an interview with Ozzy where he was talking about how he doesn’t even understand what is considered to be metal anymore since the bands that are on Ozzfest are so different from what he knows.  So, you see there’s an accepta—“

Him:  “I can’t believe you like Slipknot.”

Me:  (sigh)

Apparently, he could respect my taste in music during the first part of our conversation, but when it came to this particular group, he was inconsolable.  Seemingly at an impass, our conversation ended and we parted ways.  A couple of minutes later, Metallica came on the jukebox and I heard him remark, from across the room to everyone in general, and no one in particular, with the same voice of disgust, “Who put on Metallica?”.

This self-proclaimed musical purist is only one of many.  To find more examples, simply go to Amazon.com, and look up just about any CD review and you’ll find them.  “This group isn’t metal, it’s crappy nu-metal”…“You call this rock?  It’s clearly emo”… “He’s not rap, he’s ’top 40’.”  I’ve even stumbled across a “review” that was more of a 1,000-word dissertation on how the Sex Pistols are the only band that can be considered to be punk and everyone else is an insult to even be mentioned in the genre.  Hardcore, mathcore, screamcore, grindcore, rapcore, glam, gothmetal, symphmetal, nu-metal, darkwave, thrash, emo, screamo, poprock, powerpop, symphpop, horrorpunk, skatepunk…While these subgenres are helpful to those seeking bands with similar sounds, it now seems that half of these subgenres are being used by music elitists to set a band apart, while the other half are being used to brand a band as being completely unacceptable.  A common example:  Don’t like a band?  Doesn’t matter what they sound like, simply call them “emo” and talk about kids with dyed-black bangs and black lipstick.  Give me a break.

Is this what music criticism has been reduced to?  No longer analyzing music on its merits and responding with intelligent opinions about performance technicality and overall effect but instead disregarding everything as tainting some ideal purist genre?  If so, count me out.

And I have news for all of you “musical purists” who think that you are the pinnacle of musical aptitude.  There are many other purists out there that have been fans longer, “understand” the genre better, and are better connected to the underground…and they think that your taste in music sucks.

Filed under: Music   |  3 Comments
Tags: hardcore, metal, Music, nu-metal, slipknot

Barack Obama might be my last hope for…hope.

30Jan08

I’m cynical when it comes to just about everything…especially politics.  I read the news, research the candidates, follow the primaries, listen to the analysts, and on every election-day you’ll find me with an “I Voted” sticker.  However, as much as I participate in our political process, I recognize that we are a Republic, the democracy with the lower-case “d”, and the majority makes the laws.  So, while I understand the meaning behind “every vote counts” I also understand its restrictions.

Most, if not all, of the times that I vote, I leave several categories on my ballot blank.  I don’t vote for candidates or issues of whom/which I don’t regard myself knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision.  Plus, while I have only recently officially branded myself an Independent, I never was one for toeing party lines.

So, what does Barack Obama have to do with me?  From an issues standpoint, I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so I’m at odds with a fair amount of his policies.

But what’s hard to ignore is his draw.  He’s speeches are rousing, his presence is impressive, and his followers are impassioned.  (Hell, because of him, I even found myself intently listening to Ted Kennedy.)  Even more importantly, those who support him represent a plurality of young and diverse demographics.  These are the usually unimpressed and uninterested.  It’s those who were once disillusioned by the system and felt that change was impossible, that now flow into the streets in droves with a spark of hope in their eyes.  And this does not mean that he doesn’t have support from the “older” voters as well.  He does.  But unlike his counterparts that draw followers that are formulaic, Obama’s supporters cross the typical lines of gender, race, beliefs, and age.  In short, they are truly representative of “the people”.

When Hillary Clinton’s post-primary speech consisted of Bill Clinton speaking for his wife, ironically in Independence, Missouri,  in his “current capacity post-politics” (his words), listing his own accomplishments and touting the need for a “change in direction” that will somehow be met by putting the Clintons back into the White House by electing a candidate campaigning on years of experience in the current political system and drawing support from the 65+ demographic…I couldn’t help but laugh.  Not in that “Boy that’s funny” kind of way, but more in that “You’ve gotta be kidding me!” kind of way.

Now understand that the skeptical part of me, which constitutes my overwhelming majority, recognizes that Obama might be just as much of a “typical” politician as the rest, and that I, like his followers, might be being fooled.  And, since I may decide that it is my responsibility to vote solely on the issues, I may not be counted with his numbers in the end.

Still, I yearn to bring to reality what his campaign represents – the ability of the people to institute change.  A system that can silence the skeptic and provide hope to the hopeless.  And with the other alternatives providing nothing new, it appears to me that with this candidate there’s little to risk, but so much to gain.

Filed under: Politics   |  3 Comments
Tags: Barack, Clinton, Hillary, hope, Obama, Politics

PSA: Concert T-shirt Etiquette (Part 4 of 4)

17Jan08

#5:  Past Tourmate – This is not a “tour” T-shirt.  This is a T-shirt for a band that toured with the current concert band a few years before the current concert.  It ranks high on the list because it illustrates that you share the same musical interests as the current concert band.  A word of caution: This T-shirt applies to a past tourmate so it is imperative that you make sure that the reason that they are a past, and not a current, tourmate, is not because they have sold-out or caused a feud (see #20 and #19). 

#4:  Collaborator – This T-shirt is for a band/artist that worked, or was featured, on an album of the current concert band.  This T-shirt beats out the Past Tourmate T-shirt because it indicates that you share more than just the same musical interests as the current concert band, but that you also share the same artistic essence.  Hell, if a current concert band member sees you wearing this T-shirt, he/she might ask you to help out the band the next time that they’re in-studio.

#3:  Crossover – This category is for a T-shirt of a band that is a current concert band member’s previous band or, in some instances, side-project.  Some may argue that wearing the T-shirt of a previous band demeans the current band, but I disagree.  Instead, by attending a concert by the member’s current band, while wearing the T-shirt of the previous band, you are indicating to the other band members that you were already a fan of one member and that you also approve of the artistic influences from the other members, by supporting the new band as a collective.  Additionally, this T-shirt is very effective because it illustrates your support of an artist’s growth as a musician.

As noted above, in some instances this Crossover T-shirt can be for a current concert band member’s side-project.  This is also a suitable choice as long as the side-project is just that – a side-project – and, therefore, is distinct, independent, and in no way interferes with the progress of the current concert band.

#2:  Fringe of Genre – This category is for a T-shirt of a band that is in the genre, but is so independent, so pure, and so non-commercial, that only true fans of the genre have heard of them.  This T-shirt affords the wearer the best way to show-off his/her extremely tuned musical taste, impressive connection to the underground, and true understanding of the genre.  Additionally, the T-shirt provides an additional advantage in that it simultaneously allows a fellow concertgoer to also show-off his/her musical taste by acknowledging that they are also familiar with the band on your T-shirt with a simple head-nod and, “Hey, nice shirt”.

#1:  Combo:  This final category is for those who epitomize what it means to find the perfect concert T-shirt by wearing a combination of categories #5 – #2.  If you can find a T-shirt that fits into this category, you can rest assured that you have reserved you right to walk—or better yet—swagger around the concert venue as if you own the place.  Short of being up on stage, you are the awesome-est person in the room.  Examples of such a combo include Fringe of Genre-Past Tourmate, Past Tourmate-Collaborator, Fringe of Genre-Crossover, and the mind-blowing, face-melting, Fringe of Genre-Past Tourmate-Collaborator.

This concludes my list.  It represents a collective of my observations spanning a wide variety of concerts that I’ve attended from Spin Doctors (yeah, that’s right), circa 1992, to Killswitch Engage/The Dillinger Escape plan, last week.  Comments, Suggestions, and Criticisms are welcome. 

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  4 Comments
Tags: Concerts, T-shirt

PSA: Concert T-shirt Etiquette (Part 3 of 4)

15Jan08

#10:  Equipment – This is a T-shirt that advertizes music equipment rather than a band.  Common examples include Gibson®, Fender®, or Zildjian® T-shirts.  This type T-shirt is extremely effective because it provides an additional bonus of creating the assumption that you play some type of instrument.

#9:  Out of Genre – This is a tough one to master, but if you can find a band that is generally accepted outside of the genre of the concert that you are currently attending, it can illustrate a sincere understanding and respect for music in general.  In order to find a band that can be mutually respected, it is generally required to find a fringe/indie band or look to an icon.  Think Zeppelin.

#8:  Widely Accepted/Icon – This is a staple.  It’s also what’s found at most concerts.  It’s the Metallica T-shirt at a metal show, the Nirvana T-shirt at an alternative show, and the Sex Pistols T-shirt at a punk show.   This category pertains to both bands and frontmen. 

#7:  Fallen Bandmate – Any T-shirt illustrating a bandmate that has met his/her untimely demise will be met with respect by your fellow concertgoers.  It can include a fallen bandmate of the current concert band or fallen bandmate of an accepted band in the current concert genre.  There is a slight risk when traversing outside of the current concert genre, although most people will show a certain level of respect even if they don’t approve of the band.  However, to be on the safe side, when at the metal show, wear your Dimebag Darrell T-shirt and leave the Notorious B.I.G. T-shirt at home.  The only drawback with this T-shirt is that it’s a real downer.

#6:  Previous Tour – This category is for general tour T-shirts that you got from a tour a few years ago at which the current concert band was a performer.  Obviously, the draw of this shirt is because it indicates that you’ve been down with the band for a while.  Additionally, it might spark a conversation with a fellow concertgoer that was also at the particular tour.  The T-shirt’s awesomeness is directly proportional to the number of years since the tour, so you might want to wait a year or two before giving it a run.  It is important to watch out for a Previous Tour T-shirt for a tour that featured bands that fall under categories #20 or #19 and, therefore, it is best to avoid gigantic tours that are likely to encompass a lot of bands (i.e. Warped) and stick to smaller tours (i.e. Family Values) or, even better, less commercial tours (i.e. Jägermeister).

(To be continued…)

Filed under: Music   |  3 Comments
Tags: Concerts, T-shirt

PSA: Concert T-shirt Etiquette (Part 2 of 4)

13Jan08

#15:  Radio Station – Wearing a T-shirt of a radio station that plays songs of the current concert band breaks into the top 15 based on its creativity.  Additionally, if the radio station plays a wide variety of songs in the current concert band’s genre, you’re pretty much advertising the entire genre.  There are some drawbacks, however, due to the fact that, in general, the radio station on your T-shirt would be willing to drop the song of your band from its airplay rotation as soon as its ratings drop.  Also, most radio station T-shirts are free you cheap bastard.

#14:  Ironic – This one also ranks fairly high on the creative front as it entails wearing the T-shirt of a band that no one at the current concert likes, in order to add a bit of humor.  When done correctly, you can receive a multitude of comments and smiles from the opposite sex.  This one, however, is a little bit risky as the T-shirt must clearly be ironic to distinguish it from #19.  An acceptable example would be a Backstreet Boys T-shirt at a Slipknot concert.  There are big drawbacks, though, as you might have to explain it all night and someone is going to comment that you actually paid money for it.

#13:  Old-School – Ok, so if you really want to wear a T-shirt of the current concert band, it is only acceptable if the T-shirt is seriously old-school.  This situation, however, only works if the T-shirt is significantly old and, therefore, only applies to bands that have been around for 6+ years.  Additionally, the T-shirt should clearly illustrate its age by way of a date or an illustration that can be directly correlated to the release of an old album.  This T-shirt should be very faded. 

#12:  Old-School, Old-Name – This corresponds to the rare situation where you own a T-shirt of a current concert band before it changed its name to its current name.  This type of T-shirt gets the edge on just being Old-School alone because it proves that you’ve been down with the band from the very beginning.

#11:  Label – If you can get a-hold of a T-shirt for the record label to which the current concert band is signed, or a record label that really embraces the concert’s genre, it’s a pretty good find.  It’s important to note that this only really works with indie labels.  A Columbia records T-shirt does nothing for you since there are about a million bands signed to Columbia and its subsidiaries, including some bands that will be considered to be pretty lame by the current concertgoers.  Sometimes, you can get away with a label T-shirt of a very specific subsidiary, but keep in mind that the coolness of the T-shirt is inversely proportional to how greedy and how much of a conglomerate the parent label is considered to be (i.e. stay away from any association with labels that are considered to be “the man”).

(To be continued…)

Filed under: Music   |  5 Comments
Tags: Concerts, T-shirt

PSA: Concert T-shirt Etiquette (Part 1 of 4)

12Jan08

When attending a concert, it is important to realize that one has the unique opportunity to showcase his/her musical tastes and expertise.  This is not by way of one’s knowledge of the bands on stage, comprehension of music theory, or the ability to beautifully sing along to every song in perfect harmony.  No, one’s musical understanding is best expressed by the T-shirt that he/she has painstakingly chosen to wear.  There are few other ways that one can show to his/her peers that he/she is truly down with the current scene and deserving of the upmost respect.  This seemingly simple choice from one’s wardrobe can open a wide variety of opportunities such as gaining admiration, making a friend, or even getting the opportunity to converse with a member of the band.

With so much at stake, it is important to choose the best T-shirt for the concert being attended while avoiding the numerous pitfalls that await the un-savvy dresser.  As such, I have crafted a list of twenty concert T-shirt options, ordered from worst to best, to help when making such an important decision.

Note: This list is only intended to help showcase your musical expertise and not to help showcase your sense of humor, intelligence, status as a badass, etc.  As such, this list will only be addressing music related T-shirts and will not address other T-shirt alternatives such as the college/university, political, humorous, intentionally controversial, explicit, or socially aware T-shirts.

Alright, on to the list:

#20:  Feuding /Rival Band – Starting at #20 is the T-shirt of a band with which the current concert band that you are seeing is feuding.  This is definitely a faux pas.  Before going to a concert, it is extremely important to research rivalries between bands.  Some simple Internet searching can result in a wealth of information regarding inter-band relationships.  Wearing a T-shirt of a feuding/rival band will, at very least, indicate to others that you are not a true fan and, most likely, cause some type of confrontation resulting in a war of words…or a fat lip. 

#19:  Sell-Out – Only slightly better than #20.  This category of T-shirt encompasses any band considered by patrons of the current concert to be a sell-out, no longer cool, never cool, never properly considered to be part of the genre, or “Top 40”.  Stay away at all costs.

#18:  T-shirt Bought at Current Concert – I know you’re excited about your new T-shirt, but really?  Despite what you think, wearing this T-shirt does not make you cool, since everyone at the concert that has $20 can get it.  This includes any shirt that you bought at the current concert including a general “Tour” T-shirt or a T-shirt of any band currently performing.  The only circumstance where it is acceptable to wear a T-shirt that you just bought at the merch table is if, upon entering the concert, you receive new information that makes you realize that the band on your current T-shirt falls into one of the Feuding/Rival Band (#20) or Sell-Out (#19) categories.  Otherwise, wait until you get home to put it on.

#17:  Current Concert Band – Based on what I’ve seen it might surprise some people, but it is not generally acceptable to wear the T-shirt of a band that you are seeing at the current concert.  Everyone already knows that you’re a fan…you’re already at the concert.  So what are you trying to say?  That you’re a super fan?  The point of wearing a band’s T-shirt at a concert is to provide additional insight into your musical aptitude. This will not happen if you wear the T-shirt of the band up on stage.  Additionally, you run the risk of wearing a T-shirt that is currently being sold at the show, giving the impression of #18.  If you must wear a T-shirt of the current concert band, there are two somewhat acceptable situations which I will address later in #13 and #12.

#16:  Current Concert Band Frontman – This is a T-shirt only illustrating the frontman/frontwoman of the current concert band.  A little better than Current Concert Band, since you are putting some effort in it, but still suffers from the problems of #17.  Besides, the frontman/frontwoman inherently gets more glory than the rest of the band, which might already be sparking jealousy in the other band members.  Your T-shirt is only adding fuel to the fire.  The last thing that you want to do is give the frontman/frontwoman a big head and start a fight between bandmates.  This category is also intended to encompass the rare situation where another individual in the current concert band is the focus of the T-shirt (i.e. guitarist, drummer, etc.).

Note:  This is not addressing bands that are basically only a frontman/fronwoman, such as Ozzy Osborne.  In such a case, this category does not apply but wearing an Ozzy shirt would be subject to #18 and #17.  If at an Ozzy show, better options would be to wear a Randy Rhoads T-shirt (#7-to be addressed later) or a Black Sabbath T-shirt (#3-to be addressed later).

(To be continued…)

Filed under: Music   |  4 Comments
Tags: Concerts, T-shirt